|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 6, 2008 20:02:41 GMT -5
Some of you have been with the game since it ran in the 2e format. At the time, we had more players who were familiar with 3.X -- to accommodate them and try to draw more players, I set to work converting the game to its current hybrid edition. It's been a few years, now, and while I've made significant progress, I've still only hardly put a dent in bringing everything together (and there are still many details with the base 3.X system of which I'm unaware). I'm throwing pebbles at giants.
Nowadays, it seems we have more 2e players than not, and finding new players through message board and community advertisement hasn't been very successful, even with the updated system. Now that 4e has come out, many of the players who'd be drawn to a D&D game are going to jump on that instead (and no way am I going to try to make that change, for many reasons).
It would make my job here quite a bit easier if things went back to 2e again. I'd no longer have to worry about conversions, tweaking published material to fit it more closely to existing adjustments, familiarizing myself with new source material, and everything else that's come with the mountainous task of the rule change. The extra effort that I've been applying to those things could be applied to keeping the game updated and moving instead.
Races and classes would be the standard according to the PHB and PWHB. Additional racial benefits and class-related powers would be available for purchase as characters rise in level, and proficiency scores could be improved as well (thus preserving the flexibility brought to the game with Prestige and Paragon Classes, Bloodlines, Templates, Feats, and the Skill Point system). We'd get to keep the aspects of the game that make the d20 system so appealing.
Just floating the idea for now (I'm obviously hoping it'll be well-received, but the honest opinions of the players are more important). Any preliminary thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 6, 2008 21:06:28 GMT -5
I have watched the game of dungeons and dragons evolve over the years from second edition through to fourth and my personal belief is that from a gameplay mechanics perspective, 3.5 is the pinnacle edition. Having now got my hands on the rule books for 4th edition, I can honestly say I have no desire to ever try it. I do have fond memories of 2nd edition, and I recall being more than a little reluctant to make the change to 3rd initially. In many cases, I feel that third edition can be needlessly complicated, but it grants a degree of flexibility not offered in the other iterations, including now 4th edition.
The conversion you have undertaken, Stix, has been a colossal effort, but it is not unappreciated. I have been looking for a good Planescape game for (I kid you not) years, and in all sincerity, yours stand second to none, both in terms of story telling and mechanics. I would be sad to see you abandon the hybrid, but I will abide by the majority’s will (even if it means having to figure out THAC0 all over again). Ultimately I find this game enjoyable for the writers we are so fortunate to have, and that wont change no matter how often the rules do.
Exile
PS – I would be happy to help you update and assimilate any resources I have access to, just give the word
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 7, 2008 12:10:10 GMT -5
I have watched the game of dungeons and dragons evolve over the years from second edition through to fourth and my personal belief is that from a gameplay mechanics perspective, 3.5 is the pinnacle edition. In many regards, I agree. It's been simplified such that it's a much easier game to teach to new players, and the character development options are a great addition. There are a great many improvements on the system over prior editions. The main thing that makes me balk at the idea of continuing with it is my lack of understanding of the system's intricacies (and the concomitant lack of time to devote to learning). I got a crash course in the system's basics through a tabletop game run by one of my former roommates, and I liked everything I came across -- but actually running a game with the minimal required knowledge is a very different experience. Also, life is just fairly complicated right now, with moving and job hunting and such. I can be easily overwhelmed sometimes, so I'd like to simplify as much as I can. Having now got my hands on the rule books for 4th edition, I can honestly say I have no desire to ever try it. I can appreciate 4e for what it is -- a well-executed game system modeled after World of Warcraft and other successful MMORPGs -- but it's a far cry from the sort of game I'd actually want to play. Many long-time gamers feel the same way, if the sites I'm on are any indicator. I do have fond memories of 2nd edition, and I recall being more than a little reluctant to make the change to 3rd initially. In many cases, I feel that third edition can be needlessly complicated, but it grants a degree of flexibility not offered in the other iterations, including now 4th edition. The inflexibility is exactly what I hope to remedy with the inclusion of the Skills & Powers-style elements. I'll see if I can whip up a quick example to post. The conversion you have undertaken, Stix, has been a colossal effort, but it is not unappreciated. I have been looking for a good Planescape game for (I kid you not) years, and in all sincerity, yours stand second to none, both in terms of story telling and mechanics. I would be sad to see you abandon the hybrid, but I will abide by the majority’s will (even if it means having to figure out THAC0 all over again). Ultimately I find this game enjoyable for the writers we are so fortunate to have, and that wont change no matter how often the rules do. That's kind of you to say. I know I've been enjoying it -- it's a bumpy ride sometimes, but in the end there's a great group of players here whose writing and interest in character and plot development give me a little thrill every time I see that there's a new post.  |
|
|
|
Post by hilathic on Jul 7, 2008 17:37:53 GMT -5
In all honesty I'm frustrated with 3.Stix. My character is still not really complete. But that doesn't matter to me at all, Exile is right, the writers here are excellent and I am happy with the story. 2e would be easier for me for the pen and paper side of the game, but I'm happy with the RP.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 7, 2008 18:23:46 GMT -5
3.5 for me! Bugger that old edition crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 7, 2008 18:25:18 GMT -5
that being said, if you let me absolutely whore john out according to combat and tactics I might be okay with it. *chuckles*
I got those books right as 3.0 was about to start and was dreadfully disappointed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 7, 2008 20:15:59 GMT -5
that being said, if you let me absolutely whore john out according to combat and tactics I might be okay with it. *chuckles* I got those books right as 3.0 was about to start and was dreadfully disappointed. If we go this route, Combat & Tactics will be included, with weapon mastery and all the badassery that it entails. So will Spells & Magic (and its spell specialization), for the spellslingers. While I won't be overcomplicating the game with many of the new rules from those books (like Fatigue, and Spell Points), all of the proficiencies, maneuvers, special talents, and new weapons and equipment will be brought over. For additional combat options, I also plan to include Advanced Martial Arts from the Ninja's Handbook. |
|
|
|
Post by Uathach Blackmantle on Jul 7, 2008 23:44:24 GMT -5
I'll agree with the majority here. 2e [and the expansion rules] which I'm more familiar with, would make gameplay a hell of a lot easier, and less of a headache for you, Stix. It's a titanic effort you have taken on here, and we're all appreciative that you've kept this going for so long.  I like the skills/feats, and the stat set up of 3.5 edition. I'd hate to see these tossed out the window in favour of the more primitive proficiencies, and the inflexible stats of 2e. I always did prefer Players Options, over the base 2e rules. Different methods of spellcasting, like preserving/defiling, channelling, etc, added a nice touch to gameplay. The psionics rules in Players Options were better, and the inclusion of critical hit results, for physical attacks and spells, adds a bit more colour to storytelling. I'm all for a cross-over back to 2nd edition, especially if the game retains its flexibility. That's my two pence worth. |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 11, 2008 22:48:24 GMT -5
If we do switch back to a variant of second edition rules, what is the plan for adjudicating classes that only exist in the newer edition? Favored Soul would be my case in point but I'm sure there are others. Also, how will we be translating the gestalt? I don't recall the rules for multiclassing as being quite as forgiving under 2nd edition.
Exile
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 12, 2008 0:36:29 GMT -5
They were, in fact, crap on a stick. Which is why I'd prefer to remain as we are now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 12, 2008 13:23:49 GMT -5
I like the skills/feats, and the stat set up of 3.5 edition. I'd hate to see these tossed out the window in favour of the more primitive proficiencies, and the inflexible stats of 2e. I'd be keeping the stat increase every four levels. Room for improvement is a good thing. If we do switch back to a variant of second edition rules, what is the plan for adjudicating classes that only exist in the newer edition? Favored Soul would be my case in point but I'm sure there are others. Also, how will we be translating the gestalt? I don't recall the rules for multiclassing as being quite as forgiving under 2nd edition. These issues have been my major hangup in considering the next move. Here's my thought process: PCs of races that can multiclass or dual-class will be able to select either of these as an option. Thus, it is possible to be a human fighter/mage/cleric, or a tiefling who advances to 5th level as a ranger and then decides to learn magecraft. Multiclassed PCs will still have to earn the XP for both (or all three) classes, but will receive additional character points with their secondary levels. For example, a fighter/mage would gain 5 CPs when leveling to 2/1, then a bonus of 2 CPs at 2/2. A fighter/mage/thief would earn 5 CPs at thief 2, 2 CPs at fighter 2, and 1 CP at mage 2. Dual-classing will no longer have its nonsensical restrictions -- you can use the abilities of your old class while learning a new one, and you can also switch back to your old class if you have the requisite stats for it. Secondary levels each earn 1 Character Point. PCs who sacrifice the option to multiclass or dual-class receive an additional 5 CPs. I've considered the addition of some sort of gestalt option, but I'm finding it difficult to rework it while preserving game balance... otherwise it becomes something that blows multiclassing out of the water. Non-2e classes are an even stickier situation. Scout, Rogue, or Spellthief PCs translate fairly easily to Thieves. Barbarians and Hexblades could become Fighters, Warlocks could become Mages or Specialist Wizards. Pugilists could go one of two ways -- Fighters with advanced martial arts, or Monks. I'll say that I've never been entirely comfortable with the concept of the Favored Soul class in the Planescape setting; the idea of a mortal being empowered by a god is the stuff of proxies, and shouldn't be commonplace (or even dependent on mechanics) enough to be represented by a PC class. Here are a couple suggestions to approximate the class abilities: - multiclassing or dual-classing with the Priest or Crusader class
- buying a complement of priest spell spheres with CPs
- buying spell-like abilities from the aasimar list
They were, in fact, crap on a stick. Which is why I'd prefer to remain as we are now. I understand that sentiment, but my wife is prepared to strangle me for spending as much time as I do working on the game. Minimizing the legwork is crucial to my continued survival.  |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 13, 2008 21:17:24 GMT -5
I see you've started posting second edition rules on the board, so I guess this issue is largely decided at this point but I was hoping I might ask a couple more questions.
I certainly don't speak for anyone else in saying this but my second edition books are in a box somewhere in a garage in another city, and I don't even have a complete set to begin with (never purchased skills and powers). Since there is no open source document for 2nd edition to refer to, and my memory is far from eidetic, will you be posting enough of the rules to play by? I know that's another monumental task for you, but otherwise I'm walking blind.
Secondly, could we do away with maximum levels for nonhumans? I know most of us are nowhere close to hitting our peaks but that was a feature of second edition I always found constraining.
Exile
|
|
|
|
Post by hilathic on Jul 13, 2008 22:18:28 GMT -5
I suggest once hitting your max level need 2x exp to advance beyond that.
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Jul 13, 2008 22:34:55 GMT -5
Heh, I'm fine either way, and you made dual-classing and multiclassing less crap on a stick so I won't complain about that.
It'll be possible to build a heavily-skilled fighter type, won't it? Sos that my fated won't just be your standard I hit it until it's dead type?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 13, 2008 22:45:17 GMT -5
That's exactly my house rule. It's also not likely that any given PC will advance to the point of having to worry about a level limit any time soon.
Level limits can also be raised by high prime requisite scores. Single-classed or dual-classing aasimar, half-elves, and tieflings' level limits are raised by two.
I'll see if I can dig up some .pdfs that can be emailed (the only one I have is nearly 30 megs). Torrent sites are also worth checking out. If anyone can help out in this regard, it'd be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 13, 2008 22:56:28 GMT -5
Heh, I'm fine either way, and you made dual-classing and multiclassing less crap on a stick so I won't complain about that. It'll be possible to build a heavily-skilled fighter type, won't it? Sos that my fated won't just be your standard I hit it until it's dead type? Certainly. Fated receive twice as many nonweapon slots to start and draw from any proficiency group without penalty, and you could always either dual- or multiclass with thief or spend CPs on thief abilities to represent what proficiencies don't cover. |
|
|
|
Post by hilathic on Jul 14, 2008 7:15:11 GMT -5
How many starting CP do bards get?
And where is "song magic specialization" located?
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGratefulNed on Jul 14, 2008 13:22:06 GMT -5
I'm kinda torn on this issue...while I'm generally in favor of 2nd ed (I'm more familiar with it than 3.blah) now that I've finally finished Gl'Fnak's conversion to 3rd and working pretty much the same as how he was way back in the day when we started this as 2nd ed tabletop I'd be kinda annoyed at having to convert him back...and wondering what new things I've added won't convert back 1:1 seeing as that was a lot of my dislike of the conversion from 2nd when you took this online.
How do you plan on converting XP? Since 3.x everyone gets levels at the same XP regardless of class, but 2nd ed it's all over the board. A direct 1:1 conversion of XP would result in rogues suddenly gaining a lot of bonus levels and mages potentially losing them. Trying to multi-class will also present significant XP drawbacks.
Are CPs completely replacing proficiency slots? How will templates/paragons/bloodlines work?
|
|
|
|
Post by Stix on Jul 14, 2008 14:19:12 GMT -5
How many starting CP do bards get? And where is "song magic specialization" located? Starting CPs are based on race. You may choose additional class limitations, racial penalties, or disadvantages to gain bonus CPs. Intelligence also provides bonus CPs: 8 or less: 1 9 - 11: 2 12 - 13: 3 14 - 15: 4 16: 5 17: 6 18: 7 19: 8 (This is in addition to the proficiency slots granted by Intelligence.) For song specialization, see the newly-put-up Thaumaturge class. I'm kinda torn on this issue...while I'm generally in favor of 2nd ed (I'm more familiar with it than 3.blah) now that I've finally finished Gl'Fnak's conversion to 3rd and working pretty much the same as how he was way back in the day when we started this as 2nd ed tabletop I'd be kinda annoyed at having to convert him back...and wondering what new things I've added won't convert back 1:1 seeing as that was a lot of my dislike of the conversion from 2nd when you took this online. As this idea settled in, my first thought was "I bet Ned's going to want to punch me for this." In looking things over, most of his 3.x abilities should translate back pretty directly, and his original 2e options are still around. How do you plan on converting XP? Since 3.x everyone gets levels at the same XP regardless of class, but 2nd ed it's all over the board. A direct 1:1 conversion of XP would result in rogues suddenly gaining a lot of bonus levels and mages potentially losing them. Trying to multi-class will also present significant XP drawbacks. My current thought on XP is the following: (X^2)x1000 + Current XP ...where X is the highest level to which you could currently train based on your current XP. A 5th-level fighter-rogue, for example, would have a minimum of 10000 XP in this edition. Add to that 25000 from the equation. If the player opted to go with a single-classed fighter in 2e, that 35000+ experience actually bumps him up to 6th. Multiclass fighter/thief or fighter/bard? 5th level in each class. A dual-classed character could be a fighter 4/thief 6 or a fighter 6/thief 3, among other options. If the player decides that in 2e the character should instead be a fighter/mage/thief, dividing the XP three ways still puts the PC at level 4/4/5. [whisper=thegratefulned]Gl'Fnak has the XP to be 10th in 3.Stix, and Nuuko 8th. Gl'Fnak could be a dual-classed thief 8/transmuter 7, or a multiclassed mage/thief 7/8, if you want to keep him as close to the original concept as possible (and keep both levels close together with the dual-classing -- you could go as far apart as thief 5/transmuter 9). Nuuko could be a 6/7 ranger/thief if multiclassed.[/whisper] Are CPs completely replacing proficiency slots? How will templates/paragons/bloodlines work? We're going to use the proficiency system; you start with a set number and gain them every so many levels, based on your class(es). However, you can buy new proficiency slots with CPs (Weapon Proficiencies cost 2 for warriors, 3 for everybody else, and Nonweapon Proficiencies cost 3 for a one-slot, 5 for a two-slot, and 6 for a three-slot). You can also improve proficiency scores with CPs (1:1). The supernatural abilities associated with templates, paragon classes, and bloodlines can be bought as racial abilities. As a side note, kits will be included (Planewalkers most preferred). The first kit chosen is free, subsequent kits may be added on at the cost of 5 CPs. |
|
|
|
Post by exile on Jul 14, 2008 14:35:48 GMT -5
I have to say I'm still more than a little worried that my characters won't end up having the same feel which troubles me far more than the mechanics. I'm more worried about Hadrian than Kale in this respect. I wish I could say what in particular I was worried about, but with only a remote knowledge of 2nd edition at this point I can't really picture what he will look like on paper. I don't think I've ever seen the Crusader class before, but it hardly sounds like a fit for the Bleak Cabal, and I know the Madmen have no limitations against Clerics but I find it difficult to justify combining such disparate theologies in one character.
I guess more than anything I'm writing to make one final plea for keeping the hybrid system in play. I think after all the work you've already invested, none of us needs to be clamoring for additional sources to be included. There is quite frankly more than enough already posted to make everyone happy. If you chose to update the boards with new books from time to time, it should be done purely at your leisure without coming at the expense of your family life. We all know life comes before the game.
Respectfully,
Exile
|
|
